Grammarly Faces Class Action Lawsuit Regarding Its AI ‘Expert Review’ Functionality

Superhuman, the tech firm responsible for the writing tool Grammarly, is facing a class action lawsuit regarding an AI feature that suggested edits as though they originated from well-known authors and academics—many of whom did not authorize their names to be included in the application.

Julia Angwin, a prestigious investigative journalist and founder of The Markup, a nonprofit news outlet that examines technology’s effects on society, is the sole named plaintiff in the case. The lawsuit does not specify a damage amount but claims that damages for the plaintiff class exceed $5 million. She, along with figures like Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, was presented through Grammarly’s “Expert Review” feature as a virtual editing resource for users.

The federal lawsuit, lodged Wednesday afternoon in the Southern District of New York, claims that Angwin, representing herself and others in similar positions, “contests Grammarly’s unauthorized use of the names and identities of countless journalists, authors, writers, and editors to generate profits for Grammarly and its parent company, Superhuman.”

This complaint emerges as Superhuman has decided to eliminate the feature due to considerable public outcry. “After thorough consideration, we have made the choice to disable Expert Review while we reimagine the feature to better serve users and give experts genuine control over their representation—or the choice not to be represented at all,” stated Ailian Gan, Superhuman’s director of product management, in a statement to WIRED just before the lawsuit was filed. “We designed the agent to enable users to leverage insights from thought leaders and experts while providing experts new avenues to share their knowledge and connect with wider audiences. Based on the feedback we’ve received, it’s clear we did not meet expectations. We apologize and will approach things differently from now on.”

As previously reported by WIRED, last year Superhuman integrated a range of AI-driven tools into the platform, including one that claimed to have a respected writer (living or deceased) provide feedback on the user’s text. Although a disclaimer indicated that none of the featured individuals had endorsed or directly contributed to this tool, which utilized an underlying large language model, various writers—including those from WIRED—voiced their frustration regarding Grammarly using their likenesses and seemingly replicating their life’s work with these AI entities.

Angwin’s lawyer, Peter Romer-Friedman, asserts that established laws in New York and California, where Superhuman is headquartered, clearly forbid the commercial use of an individual’s name and likeness without their consent. “Legally, we consider this a straightforward case,” he tells WIRED. “More broadly, one of the motivations behind filing this case is our observation of societal trends: many professionals who invest years, or in Julia’s case, decades, in perfecting a skill or a craft find their name or expertise appropriated by others without consent.”

As a New York Times opinion writer, Angwin has extensively covered how Silicon Valley giants have compromised privacy in the 21st century.

“Contrary to the apparent belief of certain tech companies, it is illegal to exploit individuals’ names and identities for commercial gain, whether these individuals are well-known or not,” the lawsuit contends. “Through this action, Ms. Angwin aims to prevent Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman, from profiting off her name and those of hundreds of other journalists, authors, editors, and even lawyers, and to stop Grammarly from falsely attributing words and advice to them that they never expressed.”

Angwin informed WIRED that she was taken aback upon discovering Grammarly’s use of her name and reputation through the tech newsletter Platformer. “You know, deepfakes are something I always associate with celebrities, not everyday journalists,” she remarks. “I was just like, are you kidding me?”